From Lebanon to the Red Sea, a broader conflict with Iran looms

BERLIN — US President Joseph R. Biden and his top national security aides believed last summer that the chances of conflict with Iran and its proxies were well contained.

After secret talks, they had just concluded a deal that led to the release of five imprisoned Americans in return for $6 billion in frozen Iranian funds and some Iranian prisoners. The militants that Iran finances and arms — Hamas in the Palestinian territories, Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen — seemed relatively quiet. Iran even slowed enrichment of uranium at its underground nuclear sites, delaying its progress toward a weapon.

Hamas’ Oct. 7 invasion of Israel and Israel’s tough response have changed all that. Now, US and Israeli officials, and a dozen countries working in concert to keep commerce flowing in the Red Sea, are confronting a newly aggressive Iran. After launching scores of attacks, from Lebanon to the Red Sea to Iraq, the proxy groups have come into direct conflict with US forces twice in the past week, and the US is openly threatening airstrikes if the violence does not abate.

Meanwhile, though little discussed by the Biden administration, the Iranian nuclear program has suddenly been put on steroids. International inspectors announced in late December that Iran initiated a threefold increase in its enrichment of near-bombgrade uranium. By most rough estimates, Iran now has the fuel for at least three atomic weapons — and US intelligence officials believe the additional enrichment needed to turn that fuel into bomb-grade material would take only a few weeks.

“We are back to square one,” Nicolas de Rivière, a top French diplomat deeply involved in negotiating the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, said last week.

US and European intelligence officials say they do not believe the Iranians want a direct conflict with the United States or Israel, which they suspect would not end well. But they seem more than willing to push the envelope, enabling attacks, coordinating targeting of US bases and ships carrying goods and fuel, and walking to the edge, again, of nuclear weapons capability.

Added to the complexity of the problem is the dramatically widening scope of Iran’s aid to Russia. What began as a trickle of Shahed drones sold to Russia for use against Ukraine has turned into a flood. And now US intelligence officials believe that, despite warnings, Iran is preparing to ship short-range missiles for use against Ukraine, just as Ukraine is running short on air defense and artillery shells.

“I see Iran as well positioned, and it has checkmated the US and its interests in the Mideast,” said Sanam Vakil, director of the Middle East and North Africa program at Chatham House. “Iran is active on all the borders, resistant to any sort of change from within, while enriching uranium at very alarming levels.”

QUIET DEAL THAT ENDED BADLY

Mr. Biden entered office intent on reviving the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, which contained Iran’s nuclear program for three years until Mr. Trump withdrew from it in 2018. After more than a year of negotiations, an accord was all but reached in the summer of 2022 to restore most of the agreement. It would have required Iran to ship its newly produced nuclear fuel out of the country, just as it had in 2015.

But the effort collapsed. For the next year, Iran accelerated its nuclear program, for the first time enriching uranium to 60% purity, just shy of the 90% needed to produce weapons. It was a calculated move intended to show the United States that Iran was just a few steps from a bomb — but short of going over the line, to forestall an attack on its nuclear facilities.

Last summer, however, Brett McGurk, Mr. Biden’s Middle East coordinator, quietly pieced together two separate deals. One got the five American prisoners released in return for several imprisoned Iranians and the transfer of $6 billion in Iranian assets from South Korea to an account in Qatar for humanitarian purposes.

But the second deal — one that Mr. Biden did not want revealed — was an unwritten agreement that Iran would restrict its nuclear enrichment and keep a lid on the proxy forces. Only then, the Iranians were told, could there be talks on a broader deal.

For a few months, it appeared to be working. Iranian proxies in Iraq or Syria did not attack U.S. forces, ships ran freely in the Red Sea and inspectors reported that enrichment had been drastically slowed.

Some analysts say it was a temporary, and deceiving, quiet.

CRISIS IN THE RED SEA

The piece of the conflict with the most immediate global impact has been centered on the Red Sea, where Houthi forces in Yemen, using Iranian intelligence and weapons, are targeting what they call “Israeli ships.” In fact, they appear to be targeting all ships with heat-seeking missiles that cannot discriminate between targets and fast boats used to board and take over tankers.

When the US Navy came to rescue a Maersk cargo ship under attack a little more than a week ago, the Houthis opened fire on Navy helicopters. The Navy pilots returned fire and sank three of the four Houthi boats, killing 10, the Houthis reported.

Maersk, one of the world’s largest shippers, has suspended all transits through the Red Sea “for the foreseeable future,” meaning that it is routing around the fastest path between Europe and Asia — the Suez Canal. Companies around the world, from Ikea to BP, are already warning of supply-chain delays.

Mr. Biden faces hard choices. He pulled back from the Middle East to focus on competing with and deterring China. Now, he is being sucked back in.

“The US has built up a matrix of deterrence, signaling that it is not interested in a regional war but is prepared to intervene in response to Iran’s provocation,” said Hugh Lovatt, a Middle East expert for the European Council on Foreign Relations. But the presence of US carriers and troops makes Washington more exposed, he said. “So this matrix of deterrence could be a driver of escalation.” —